alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

Calendar No. 228 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 598 

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation 

of marriage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 16, 2011 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FRANKEN, 

Mr. INOUYE, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

MERKLEY, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Mr. WYDEN, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. KOHL, Mr. HARKIN, 

Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BENNET, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Ms. MIKULSKI, 

and Mr. LEVIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

NOVEMBER 10, 2011 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

A BILL 

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect 

for State regulation of marriage. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

S 598 RS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Respect for Marriage 

3 Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED 

5 STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DE6 FENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT. 

7 Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is re8 pealed, and the table of sections at the beginning of chap9 ter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 

10 striking the item relating to that section. 

11 SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION. 

12 Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended 

13 to read as follows: 

14 ‘‘§ 7. Marriage 

15 ‘‘(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which 

16 marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered 

17 married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the State 

18 where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of 

19 a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage 

20 is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage 

21 could have been entered into in a State. 

22 ‘‘(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ means a State, 

23 the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

24 Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United 

25 States.’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

Calendar No. 228 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 598 

A BILL 

To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure 

respect for State regulation of marriage. 

NOVEMBER 10, 2011 

Reported without amendment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Scott McGARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-35915.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*338Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 14, 2011.

Stacy Tempel-St. John, Linnell, New-hall, Martin & Schulke, P.C., Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

George F. Darragh, Jr., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Jennifer Randall, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, PREGERSON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff-Appellant Scott McGary appeals the district court’s decision to remand his claim for disability insurance benefits for further administrative proceedings rather than for immediate payment of benefits. The parties are familiar with the facts, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

McGary argues that the credit-as-true rule applies to his case and that we should remand with instructions for an immediate award of benefits. *See Smolen v. Chater,*80 F.3d 1278, 1292 (9th Cir.*3391996). But the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in McGary’s case erred in assessing McGary’s residual functional capacity, which led to additional errors in determining McGary’s ability to perform other jobs which exist in significant numbers in the national economy. The parties do not argue that the ALJ improperly discredited certain evidence, which is the type of error in which a credit-as-true analysis would apply. *See e.g., id.*(remanding for an award of benefits when the ALJ improperly rejected the physicians’ opinions, plaintiffs own symptom testimony, and lay witnesses testimony, and it was clear that a finding of disability was required after properly crediting this evidence as true). Accordingly, the credit-as true rule does not apply to McGary’s case.

Moreover, remand for further administrative proceedings is appropriate where there are outstanding issues that must be resolved before a disability determination can be made, and it is not clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled if all the evidence were properly evaluated. *See Vasquez v. Astrue,*572 F.3d 586, 593 (9th Cir.2009). There are still outstanding issues in McGary’s case regarding his residual functional capacity and the jobs he might be capable of performing given his manipulative limitations. Thus, because there are “sufficient unanswered questions in the record,” the district court’s decision to remand the case for further administrative proceedings was not an abuse of discretion. *Harman v. Apfel,*211 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 32 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.32
                                      Agreed to December 7, 2011        

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
            the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 470) an Act to further 
allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated 
at Hoover Dam, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following corrections:
        (1) In the second sentence of section 105(a)(2)(B) of the 
    Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 (43 U.S.C. 619(a)) (as added by 
    section 2(d)), strike ``General'' and insert ``Conformed General''.
        (2) In section 2(e), strike ``as redesignated as'' and insert 
    ``as redesignated by''.
        (3) In section 2(f), strike ``as redesignated as'' and insert 
    ``as redesignated by''.
        (4) In section 2(g), strike ``as redesignated as'' and insert 
    ``as redesignated by''.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
# C_2020390EN.01003701.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Tetra v EUIPO — Neusta next (Wave)

(Case T-869/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Wave - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 390/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Tetra GmbH (Melle, Germany) (represented by: E. Kessler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Neusta next GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2440/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Neusta next and Tetra.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2440/2018-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2440/2018-2);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.

---
# C_2019295EN.01004002.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/40

---

Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Dupuis v Parliament

(Case T-413/19)

(2019/C 295/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Dupuis (Saint-Gilles, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-1697

_____________________________

IRINA COLLIER,

Petitioner,

v.

CHARLES COLLIER,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

September 19, 2024

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

B.L. THOMAS, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Irina Collier, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Adam Vorhis of Asheville Family Law Group, Asheville, NC, for 

Respondent.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                               AHL SERVICES, INC.

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE DATA)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                    MARCH 31,
                                              ---------------------
                                                1999         1998
                                                ----         ----
<S>                                           <C>          <C>
Income Applicable to Common Stock:
  Net income                                  $   3,731    $  1,824
                                              =========    ========


Weighted Average Shares:
  Common shares                                  16,475      13,605

  Common share equivalents applicable to
    stock options outstanding                       627         502
                                              ---------    --------
  Weighted average common and common
    equivalent shares outstanding during
    the period                                   17,102      14,107
                                              =========    ========

Per Share Amount:                              
  Net income
             Basic                            $    0.23    $   0.13
                                              =========    ========
             Diluted                          $    0.22    $   0.13
                                              =========    ========
</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10639 Summary Calendar

RICKIE LYNN GRAVES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(5:00-MC-19-C)

November 21, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rickie Lynn Graves, Texas prisoner # 645074, seeks a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

denial of his motion for leave to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2254

application. Graves had previously been sanctioned by a 29 August

1994 order prohibiting him from filing any lawsuits in the Northern

District of Texas without first obtaining permission of a district

judge.2

The district court denied Graves’ motion, stating that he had

failed to show cause why the sanctions shou ld be lifted and that

his proposed 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application would be time-barred

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Because Graves has failed to show on appeal why the sanctions

order should not apply, we uphold the sanctions order and DENY his

request for a COA.

COA DENIED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00152-CR

Charles Raymond Sprague

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1410892D)

April 27, 2017

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in one of the trial court’s judgments. We vacate the trial court’s 

judgment on Count Two. It is ordered that the remaining trial court’s judgment is 

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
Exhibit 13.2
 CERTIFICATION OF JIM HAGEMANN SNABE, CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SAP AG PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date March 25, 2010
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Jim Hagemann SnabeName:
    
    Jim Hagemann SnabeTitle:
    
    Co-Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019357EN.01002501.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 August 2019 — Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL) v Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C.

(Case C-608/19)

(2019/C 357/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

Respondent: Zennaro Giuseppe Legnami Sas di Zennaro Mauro & C.

Question referred

Must the rules on the grant of aid laid down in Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation No 1407/2013 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is possible for an applicant undertaking, which finds itself exceeding the maximum permissible ceiling on account of the cumulation with previous financial assistance, to opt — up to the actual payment of the financial assistance applied for — to reduce the funding (by amending or varying the project) or to forgo (in full or in part) previous financial assistance, possibly already received, in order to fall below the maximum limit payable; and must those provisions be interpreted as meaning that the various options proposed (variation or forgoing) apply even if they are not expressly provided for in the national legislation and/or in the public notice relating to the grant of aid?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1407/2013 of 18 December 2013 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid (OJ 2013 L 352, p. 1).

---
##### 



Exhibit 14.16 Consent of Independent Accountants To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce S.A. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File
Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our report dated January
26th, 2004 on the financial statements of Urucum Mineração S.A., which appear in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended December 31st,
2004. /s/ Deloitte Touche TohmatsuDELOITTE TOUCHE TOHMATSU
 May 30th, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  MediaWorx,  Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending  September  30, 2003, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Linda Broenniman,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)    the information  contained  in the  Report fairly  presents,  in
                all material respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of
                operations of the Company.


/s/    Linda Broenniman
-------------------------------------------
Linda Broenniman
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


November 13, 2003


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Douglas R,
Young, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of NeoMagic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 26, 2008
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of NeoMagic Corporation.

Date: March 19, 2009



|       |  |                                               
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Douglas R. Young                          
|Name:  |  | Douglas R. Young                              
|Title: |  | President and Chief Financial Officer (Acting)
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 997 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water contract between 

the United States and the East Bench Irrigation District. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2011 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to extend a water 

contract between the United States and the East Bench 

Irrigation District. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘East Bench Irrigation 

5 District Water Contract Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO EXTEND WATER CONTRACT. 

7 The Secretary of the Interior may extend the contract 

8 for water services between the United States and the East 

9 Bench Irrigation District, numbered 14–06–600–3593, 

10 until the earlier of— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 997 IS

1 (1) the date that is 4 years after the date on 

2 which the contract would have expired if this Act 

3 had not been enacted; or 

4 (2) the date on which a new long-term contract 

5 is executed by the parties to the contract. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00703

- CV

In re Tina Hutcherson

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM MILAM COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied , and the emergency motion to stay

t he trial court’s declaratory judgment proceeding is dismiss ed as moot

. See Tex. R. App.

P. 52.8(a).

_ ______________________ ___________________

Edward Smith , Justice

Before Chief Justice By rne, Justices T riana and Smith

Filed: November 16, 2022